Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: Difference between revisions

From PhyWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (moved Heisenberg Uncertainty relations to Heisenberg Uncertainty Relations: Correct capitalization of title)
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:
Now that there is a relation between momentum and position, the uncertainty of the measurement of either momentum or position takes mathematical form in the Heisenberg Uncertainty relation:
Now that there is a relation between momentum and position, the uncertainty of the measurement of either momentum or position takes mathematical form in the Heisenberg Uncertainty relation:


<math>\Delta x \Delta p \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}</math>  
<math>\Delta x\,\Delta p \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}</math>  


where the <math>\Delta\ A </math> of each operator represents the positive square root of the variance, given generally by:
where the <math>\Delta A </math> of each operator represents the positive square root of the variance, given generally by:


<math>\langle(\Delta A)^2\rangle=\langle A^2\rangle-\langle A\rangle^2.</math>  
<math>(\Delta A)^2=\langle(A-\langle A\rangle)^2\rangle=\langle A^2\rangle-\langle A\rangle^2.</math>  


Although both momentum and position are measurable quantities that will yield precise values when measured, the uncertainty principle states that the deviation in one quantity is directly related to the other quantity.  This deviation in the uncertainty principle is the result of identically prepared systems not yielding identical results.   
Although both momentum and position are measurable quantities that will yield precise values when measured, the uncertainty principle states that the deviation in one quantity is directly related to the other quantity.  This deviation in the uncertainty principle is the result of identically prepared systems not yielding identical results.   
Line 16: Line 16:
A generalized expression for the uncertainty of any two operators A and B is:
A generalized expression for the uncertainty of any two operators A and B is:


<math>\Delta A\Delta B=\frac{1}{2i}\langle [A,B]\rangle.</math>  
<math>\Delta A\,\Delta B=\frac{1}{2i}\langle [A,B]\rangle.</math>  


And thus, there exists an uncertainty relation between any two observables which do not commute.
And thus, there exists an uncertainty relation between any two observables which do not commute.
Line 22: Line 22:
More generally the uncertainty principle states that two canonically conjugated variables cannot be determined simultaneously with a precision exceeding the relation:  
More generally the uncertainty principle states that two canonically conjugated variables cannot be determined simultaneously with a precision exceeding the relation:  


<math> \Delta A\Delta B = \hbar </math>
<math> \Delta A\,\Delta B = \hbar </math>


Canonically conjugated variables are those which are related by the Fourier Transform. More specifically, they are variables that when you take the Fourier Transform of a function that is dependent on one, you get a function that depends on the other. For example, position and momentum are canonically conjugated variables:
Canonically conjugated variables are those which are related by the Fourier Transform. More specifically, they are variables that when you take the Fourier Transform of a function that is dependent on one, you get a function that depends on the other. For example, position and momentum are canonically conjugated variables:
Line 30: Line 30:


Another example of canonically conjugated variables are energy and time.  
Another example of canonically conjugated variables are energy and time.  
It is precisely this relationship that leads to the uncertainty principle. The reader has probably noticed that the relation above – i.e. <math>\Delta A\Delta B = \hbar </math> – is not the familiar uncertainty principle we all know, the one where <math>\hbar  </math> is divided by two. It turns out that the above relation is more general; we only get the more familiar version when the wave-packet is Gaussian.
It is precisely this relationship that leads to the uncertainty principle. The reader has probably noticed that the relation above – i.e. <math>\Delta A\,\Delta B = \hbar </math> – is not the familiar uncertainty principle we all know, the one where <math>\hbar  </math> is divided by two. It turns out that the above relation is more general; we only get the more familiar version when the wave-packet is Gaussian.


A generalised proof of the Uncertainty Principle is as follows.
A generalized proof of the Uncertainty Principle is as follows.


For any observable A, we have  
For any observable <math>A</math>, we have  
:<math>\sigma_{A}^2 = <(\hat{A}-<A>)\Psi|(\hat{A}-<A>)\Psi> = <f|f> </math>
:<math>(\Delta A)^2 = \langle(\hat{A}-\langle A\rangle)\Psi|(\hat{A}-\langle A\rangle)\Psi\rangle = \langle f|f\rangle </math>


where <math> f \equiv (\hat{A}-<A>)\Psi </math>. Likewise, for any other observable, B,
where <math> f \equiv (\hat{A}-\langle A\rangle)\Psi </math>. Likewise, for any other observable <math>B</math>,
:<math>\sigma_{B}^2 = <g|g> </math> where <math> g \equiv (\hat{B}-<B>)\Psi </math>.
:<math>(\Delta B)^2 = \langle g|g\rangle </math> where <math> g \equiv (\hat{B}-\langle B\rangle)\Psi </math>.


Now we invoke the [[Linear Vector Space and Operators#Schwartz Inequality|Schwartz inequality]]<nowiki />. Recall that this is just
Now we invoke the [[Linear Vector Space and Operators#Schwartz Inequality|Schwartz inequality]]<nowiki />. Recall that this is just
:<math>  |\int_a^b f(x)^* g(x) dx| \leq \sqrt( \int_a^b |f(x)^2 |dx \int_a^b |g(x)^2 |dx </math>
:<math>  \left |\int_a^b [f(x)]^{*} g(x) dx\right | \leq \sqrt{\int_a^b |f(x)|^2\,dx \int_a^b |g(x)|^2\,dx} </math>


Invoking this expression,
Invoking this expression,
:<math> \sigma_{A}^2 \sigma_{B}^2 = <f|f><g|g> \geq |<f|g>|^2 </math>.
:<math> (\Delta A)^2(\Delta B)^2 = \langle f|f\rangle\langle g|g\rangle \geq |\langle f|g\rangle|^2 </math>.


Now for any complex number z
Now, for any complex number <math>z</math>,
:<math> |z|^2 = [Re(z)]^2 + [Im(z)]^2 \geq [Im(z)]^2 = [\frac{1}{2i}(z-z^*)]^2 </math>.
:<math> |z|^2 = [\text{Re}(z)]^2 + [\text{Im}(z)]^2 \geq [\text{Im}(z)]^2 = \left (\frac{z-z^*}{2i}\right )^2 </math>.


Letting <math> z = <f|g> </math>,
Letting <math> z = \langle f|g\rangle </math>,
:<math> \sigma_{A}^2 \sigma_{B}^2 \geq (\frac{1}{2i}[<f|g>-<g|f>])^2 </math>.
:<math> (\Delta A)^2(\Delta B)^2 \geq \left (\frac{\langle f|g\rangle-\langle g|f\rangle}{2i}\right )^2 </math>.


But
But
:<math> <f|g> = <(\hat{A}-<A>)\Psi|(\hat{B}-<B>)\Psi> = <\Psi|(\hat{A}-<A>)(\hat{B}-<B>)\Psi> </math>
:<math> \langle f|g\rangle = \langle(\hat{A}-\langle A\rangle)\Psi|(\hat{B}-\langle B\rangle)\Psi\rangle = \langle\Psi|(\hat{A}-\langle A\rangle)(\hat{B}-\langle B\rangle)\Psi\rangle </math>
:<math> = <\Psi| \hat{A}\hat{B} - \hat{A}<B> - \hat{B}<A> + <A><B>)\Psi> </math>
:<math> = \langle\Psi| \hat{A}\hat{B} - \hat{A}\langle B\rangle - \hat{B}\langle A\rangle + \langle A\rangle\langle B\rangle)\Psi\rangle </math>
:<math> = <\Psi| \hat{A}\hat{B}\Psi> - <B><\Psi|\hat{A}\Psi> - <A><\Psi|\hat{B}\Psi> + <A><B><\Psi|\Psi> </math>
:<math> = \langle\Psi| \hat{A}\hat{B}\Psi\rangle - \langle B\rangle\langle\Psi|\hat{A}\Psi\rangle - \langle A\rangle\langle\Psi|\hat{B}\Psi\rangle + \langle A\rangle\langle B\rangle\langle\Psi|\Psi\rangle </math>
:<math> <\hat{A}\hat{B}> - <B><A> - <A><B> + <A><B> = <\hat{A}\hat{B}> - <A><B> </math>.
:<math> \langle\hat{A}\hat{B}\rangle - \langle B\rangle\langle A\rangle - \langle A\rangle\langle B\rangle + \langle A\rangle\langle B\rangle = \langle \hat{A}\hat{B}\rangle - \langle A\rangle\langle B\rangle </math>.


Similarly,
Similarly,
:<math> <g|f> = <\hat{A}\hat{B}> - <A><B> </math>
:<math> \langle g|f\rangle = \langle\hat{B}\hat{A}\rangle - \langle A\rangle\langle B\rangle </math>


so
so
:<math> <f|g> - <g|f> = <\hat{A}\hat{B}> - <\hat{B}\hat{A}> = <[\hat{A},\hat{B}]> </math>
:<math> \langle f|g\rangle - \langle g|f\rangle = \langle\hat{A}\hat{B}\rangle - \langle\hat{B}\hat{A}\rangle = \langle[\hat{A},\hat{B}]\rangle </math>


where
where
Line 70: Line 70:


''Conclusion:''
''Conclusion:''
:<math>\sigma_{A}^2 \sigma_{B}^2 \geq (\frac{1}{2i}<[\hat{A},\hat{B}]>)^2</math>.
:<math>(\Delta A)^2(\Delta B)^2 \geq \left (\frac{1}{2i}\langle[\hat{A},\hat{B}]\rangle\right )^2</math>.


This is the generalised uncertainty principle.  
This is the generalized uncertainty principle.  


So, here is a true physical constraint on a wave packet. If we compress it in one variable, it expands in the other! If it is compressed in position (i.e., localized) then it must must be spread out in wavelength. If it is compressed in momentum, it is spread out in space.
So, here is a true physical constraint on a wave packet. If we compress it in one variable, it expands in the other! If it is compressed in position (i.e., localized) then it must must be spread out in wavelength. If it is compressed in momentum, it is spread out in space.
Line 91: Line 91:
Some comments are in order.
Some comments are in order.


A plane wave corresponds to the limit <math>\triangle p</math>. Then <math>\triangle x</math> is infinite. In an interference experiment, the beam, which is well defined in momentum, is spread out in position. The atoms pass through both slits at the same time.We cannot “aim” at one of the slits and observe interferences.
A plane wave corresponds to the limit <math>\Delta p\rightarrow 0</math>. Then <math>\Delta x</math> is infinite. In an interference experiment, the beam, which is well defined in momentum, is spread out in position. The atoms pass through both slits at the same time.We cannot “aim” at one of the slits and observe interferences.


The classical limit (i.e. how does this relate to classical physics) can be seen in a variety of ways that are more or less equivalent. One possibility is that the orders of magnitude of x and p are so large that  <math>\frac{\hbar}{2}</math> is not a realistic                                                         
The classical limit (i.e. how does this relate to classical physics) can be seen in a variety of ways that are more or less equivalent. One possibility is that the orders of magnitude of <math>x</math> and <math>p</math> are so large that  <math>\frac{\hbar}{2}</math> is not a realistic                                                         
constraint. This is the case for macroscopic systems. Another possibility is that the accuracy of the measuring devices is such that one cannot detect
constraint. This is the case for macroscopic systems. Another possibility is that the accuracy of the measuring devices is such that one cannot detect
the quantum dispersions <math>\triangle x</math> and <math>\triangle p</math>.
the quantum dispersions <math>\Delta x</math> and <math>\Delta p</math>.


See also
See also
[[Ehrenfest's Theorem#Generalized Heisenberg uncertainty relation|Generalized Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation]]
[[Ehrenfest's Theorem#Generalized Heisenberg uncertainty relation|Generalized Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation]]


As a trivial example, suppose the first observable is position <math> (\hat{A}=x)</math>, and the second is momentum <math>\hat{B}=\frac{\hbar}{i}\frac{d}{dx}</math>.
As a trivial example, suppose the first observable is position <math> (\hat{A}=\hat{x})</math>, and the second is momentum <math>\hat{B}=\hat{p}=\frac{\hbar}{i}\frac{d}{dx}</math>.


The commutation relation between these two observables is just
The commutation relation between these two observables is just
Line 106: Line 106:


So,
So,
:<math> \sigma_{A}^2 \sigma_{B}^2 \geq (\frac{1}{2i}i\hbar)^2 = (\frac{\hbar}{2})^2 </math>.
:<math> (\Delta x)^2 (\Delta p)^2 \geq \left (\frac{1}{2i}\cdot i\hbar\right )^2 = \left (\frac{\hbar}{2}\right )^2 </math>.


A worked problem showing the uncertainty in the position of different objects over the lifetime of the universe: [[Phy5645/uncertainty relations problem1|Problem 1]]
A worked problem showing the uncertainty in the position of different objects over the lifetime of the universe: [[Phy5645/uncertainty relations problem1|Problem 1]]

Revision as of 16:11, 12 March 2013

Quantum Mechanics A
SchrodEq.png
Schrödinger Equation
The most fundamental equation of quantum mechanics; given a Hamiltonian , it describes how a state Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle |\Psi\rangle} evolves in time.
Basic Concepts and Theory of Motion
UV Catastrophe (Black-Body Radiation)
Photoelectric Effect
Stability of Matter
Double Slit Experiment
Stern-Gerlach Experiment
The Principle of Complementarity
The Correspondence Principle
The Philosophy of Quantum Theory
Brief Derivation of Schrödinger Equation
Relation Between the Wave Function and Probability Density
Stationary States
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
Some Consequences of the Uncertainty Principle
Linear Vector Spaces and Operators
Commutation Relations and Simultaneous Eigenvalues
The Schrödinger Equation in Dirac Notation
Transformations of Operators and Symmetry
Time Evolution of Expectation Values and Ehrenfest's Theorem
One-Dimensional Bound States
Oscillation Theorem
The Dirac Delta Function Potential
Scattering States, Transmission and Reflection
Motion in a Periodic Potential
Summary of One-Dimensional Systems
Harmonic Oscillator Spectrum and Eigenstates
Analytical Method for Solving the Simple Harmonic Oscillator
Coherent States
Charged Particles in an Electromagnetic Field
WKB Approximation
The Heisenberg Picture: Equations of Motion for Operators
The Interaction Picture
The Virial Theorem
Commutation Relations
Angular Momentum as a Generator of Rotations in 3D
Spherical Coordinates
Eigenvalue Quantization
Orbital Angular Momentum Eigenfunctions
General Formalism
Free Particle in Spherical Coordinates
Spherical Well
Isotropic Harmonic Oscillator
Hydrogen Atom
WKB in Spherical Coordinates
Feynman Path Integrals
The Free-Particle Propagator
Propagator for the Harmonic Oscillator
Differential Cross Section and the Green's Function Formulation of Scattering
Central Potential Scattering and Phase Shifts
Coulomb Potential Scattering

Consider a long string which contains a wave that moves with a fairly well-defined wavelength across the whole length of the string. The question, "where is the wave" does not seem to make much sense, since it is spread throughout the length of string. A quick snap of the wrist and the string produces a small bump-like wave which has a well defined position. Now the question, "what is the wavelength" does not make sense, since there is no well defined period. This example illisturates the limitation on measuring the wavelength and the position simultaneously. Relating the wavelength to momentum yields the de Broglie equation, which is applicable to any wave phenomenon, including the wave equation:

Now that there is a relation between momentum and position, the uncertainty of the measurement of either momentum or position takes mathematical form in the Heisenberg Uncertainty relation:

where the of each operator represents the positive square root of the variance, given generally by:

Although both momentum and position are measurable quantities that will yield precise values when measured, the uncertainty principle states that the deviation in one quantity is directly related to the other quantity. This deviation in the uncertainty principle is the result of identically prepared systems not yielding identical results.

A generalized expression for the uncertainty of any two operators A and B is:

And thus, there exists an uncertainty relation between any two observables which do not commute.

More generally the uncertainty principle states that two canonically conjugated variables cannot be determined simultaneously with a precision exceeding the relation:

Canonically conjugated variables are those which are related by the Fourier Transform. More specifically, they are variables that when you take the Fourier Transform of a function that is dependent on one, you get a function that depends on the other. For example, position and momentum are canonically conjugated variables:

; .

Another example of canonically conjugated variables are energy and time. It is precisely this relationship that leads to the uncertainty principle. The reader has probably noticed that the relation above – i.e. – is not the familiar uncertainty principle we all know, the one where is divided by two. It turns out that the above relation is more general; we only get the more familiar version when the wave-packet is Gaussian.

A generalized proof of the Uncertainty Principle is as follows.

For any observable , we have

where . Likewise, for any other observable ,

where .

Now we invoke the Schwartz inequality. Recall that this is just

Invoking this expression,

.

Now, for any complex number ,

.

Letting ,

.

But

Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle \langle f|g\rangle = \langle(\hat{A}-\langle A\rangle)\Psi|(\hat{B}-\langle B\rangle)\Psi\rangle = \langle\Psi|(\hat{A}-\langle A\rangle)(\hat{B}-\langle B\rangle)\Psi\rangle }
Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle = \langle\Psi| \hat{A}\hat{B} - \hat{A}\langle B\rangle - \hat{B}\langle A\rangle + \langle A\rangle\langle B\rangle)\Psi\rangle }
Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle = \langle\Psi| \hat{A}\hat{B}\Psi\rangle - \langle B\rangle\langle\Psi|\hat{A}\Psi\rangle - \langle A\rangle\langle\Psi|\hat{B}\Psi\rangle + \langle A\rangle\langle B\rangle\langle\Psi|\Psi\rangle }
Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle \langle\hat{A}\hat{B}\rangle - \langle B\rangle\langle A\rangle - \langle A\rangle\langle B\rangle + \langle A\rangle\langle B\rangle = \langle \hat{A}\hat{B}\rangle - \langle A\rangle\langle B\rangle } .

Similarly,

Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle \langle g|f\rangle = \langle\hat{B}\hat{A}\rangle - \langle A\rangle\langle B\rangle }

so

Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle \langle f|g\rangle - \langle g|f\rangle = \langle\hat{A}\hat{B}\rangle - \langle\hat{B}\hat{A}\rangle = \langle[\hat{A},\hat{B}]\rangle }

where

Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle [\hat{A},\hat{B}] \equiv \hat{A}\hat{B} - \hat{B}\hat{A} }

is the commutator of the two operators.

Conclusion:

Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle (\Delta A)^2(\Delta B)^2 \geq \left (\frac{1}{2i}\langle[\hat{A},\hat{B}]\rangle\right )^2} .

This is the generalized uncertainty principle.

So, here is a true physical constraint on a wave packet. If we compress it in one variable, it expands in the other! If it is compressed in position (i.e., localized) then it must must be spread out in wavelength. If it is compressed in momentum, it is spread out in space.

So now let's see what is the physical meaning of Heisenberg’s inequalities?

1. Suppose we prepare N systems in the same state. For half of them, we measure their positions x; for the other half, we measure their momenta Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle p_{x}} . Whatever way we prepare the state of these systems, the dispersions obey these inequalities.

2. These are intrinsic properties of the quantum description of the state of a particle.

3. Heisenberg uncertainty relations have nothing to do with the accuracy of measurements. Each measurement is done with as great an accuracy as one wishes. They have nothing to do with the perturbation that a measurement causes to a system, inasmuch as each particle is measured only once.

4. In other words, the position and momentum of a particle are defined numerically only within limits that obey these inequalities. There exists some “fuzziness” in the numerical definition of these two physical quantities. If we prepare particles all at the same point, they will have very different velocities. If we prepare particles with a well-defined velocity, then they will be spread out in a large region of space.

5. Newton’s starting point must be abandoned. One cannot speak simultaneously of x and p. The starting point of classical mechanics is destroyed. Some comments are in order.

A plane wave corresponds to the limit Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle \Delta p\rightarrow 0} . Then Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle \Delta x} is infinite. In an interference experiment, the beam, which is well defined in momentum, is spread out in position. The atoms pass through both slits at the same time.We cannot “aim” at one of the slits and observe interferences.

The classical limit (i.e. how does this relate to classical physics) can be seen in a variety of ways that are more or less equivalent. One possibility is that the orders of magnitude of Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle x} and Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle p} are so large that Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle \frac{\hbar}{2}} is not a realistic constraint. This is the case for macroscopic systems. Another possibility is that the accuracy of the measuring devices is such that one cannot detect the quantum dispersions Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle \Delta x} and Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle \Delta p} .

See also Generalized Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation

As a trivial example, suppose the first observable is position Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle (\hat{A}=\hat{x})} , and the second is momentum Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle \hat{B}=\hat{p}=\frac{\hbar}{i}\frac{d}{dx}} .

The commutation relation between these two observables is just

Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle [\hat{x},\hat{p}]=i\hbar } .

So,

Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle (\Delta x)^2 (\Delta p)^2 \geq \left (\frac{1}{2i}\cdot i\hbar\right )^2 = \left (\frac{\hbar}{2}\right )^2 } .

A worked problem showing the uncertainty in the position of different objects over the lifetime of the universe: Problem 1

A problem about how to find kinetic energy of a particle, a nucleon specifically, using the uncertanity principle : Problem 2

Another problem verifying Uncertainty relation: Problem 3